Strategy or role-playing game?

[LostSoul]

Well if you don't want to roleplay or you don't want your roleplaying to have any impact on the game, then your approach will work. Although if this is the case you'd probably be better off playing Squad Leader or some other wargame.

I think that if you want your roleplay to have an impact on the game, you might want to consider playing a game where there is a mechanic for roleplaying. (I'm talking about a game where the act of roleplaying gives you a mechanical bonus.)

That being said, I think that roleplaying in D&D is more of an afterthought than anything else. Each group decides for themselves what they think is a good level of roleplaying in the game, and any level will work within the system.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think that if you want your roleplay to have an impact on the game, you might want to consider playing a game where there is a mechanic for roleplaying. (I'm talking about a game where the act of roleplaying gives you a mechanical bonus.)

Or you just use DM's fiat. If you have a decent DM and players who trust him it works quite well.

That being said, I think that roleplaying in D&D is more of an afterthought than anything else. Each group decides for themselves what they think is a good level of roleplaying in the game, and any level will work within the system.

Agreed. I'm up for a system with either no social rules or fairly complex social rules. I don't care for simple social rules or the play that emerges from them.

 

[Psion]

I would have to say this is not a zero sum game. I think both strategic and roleplaying elements of the game have progressed since the "good ol' days". Of course, you can't lead a horse to water and all that.

I do have to agree that there is a subculture that enjoys mincnig rules more than I do, and it seems that the tenor of current rulings and the RPGA sort of encourage this sort of thing. I consider that unfortunate. Excessive rules lawyering runs counter to the goals of group play. Rules are there to facilitate play, not to be the point of it. But I think I've said something like that before...

I still loathe the use of spinning the term "role-playing" by varying the first word as a derision, though.

 

[LostSoul]

I think you are looking at my statement in the wrong manner, Lost Soul.

I thought I might have been. I am sorry if I caused any offense; none was meant.

I find it some what weird to think that people involved in the hobby for several years suddenly decided to role-play less, given that the hobby itself is role-playing. I can accept that it is possible that there is less role-playing these days, but I think it must have been caused by "something" rather than just saying "the players... have changed." Is 3e attracting a different sort of player than older editions? I think that if the players are changing, or if current players are changing the way they play, then there must be some sort of catalyst for this change in the rules themselves. What is it?

I think that's a great question. I would answer by saying that the rules reward players for playing a certain way (the strategic way). (Although they don't penalize anyone for role-playing.) I also think that players who never really wanted lots of role-playing but instead wanted to get down to the "core story" of D&D (adventurers go to a dangerous location, kill things, take their stuff, get better at it, rinse and repeat) are much better served with 3e.

Do you think that these games are inherently less focused on combat than 3e because they are setting based? Perhaps because they have alternate forms of conflict built in whereas 3e basically only has monsters to fight and any other conflict is incumbent upon the DM to develop?

I'm not familiar with those games. But I'd say it comes down to the reward system. D&D is built around strategic play, especially combat. That's what you get rewarded for, and your characters get better at it over time. If those games reward other types of play, I'd say that yes, they are less focused on combat.

A system that has detailed conflict rules for social interaction would favour that type of play more; but if the result of those conflicts did not enhance your character's ability in social interaction (and thus the player's ability to "do more" in the social interaction realm), it would be missing out.

I hear that Spycraft 2.0 has some detailed social interaction rules. If you tied that to the CR/XP system, and advancing in levels allowed you to become better at social interaction, I'd say that the focus would have shifted away from combat (at least somewhat).

I think that D&D's social interaction rules are a little on the light side. It usually doesn't feel satisfying (to me) when all you have to do is roll one skill check (Bluff or Diplomacy, typically) and the encounter is resolved.

Warning: rambling thoughts ahead...

I wonder what it would look like if you took the combat rules and just applied them to Diplomacy. Instead of weapons, you'd pick something like "rapier wit (1d6, 18-20/x2)" or "onslaught of will (2d6, 19-20/x2)". You'd roll your Diplomacy instead of Attack, still doing hit point damage (or perhaps Social HP) against some kind of Social AC... and then all you'd have to do is map all the combat actions to social ones (trip - he stutters and mumbles, off-balance and can't keep his train of thought because of your impressive display of wit).

I'd set it up so that you'd have to narrate how you make your "attack roll".

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Now, I personally think it's a lot of fun to make my Bluff/Diplomacy/Whatever roll, see how well or poorly my character did, and then role-play that result.

Yuck. That's the approach I like the least. Far worse than "skip the talking and just roll." If I'm going to do something in-game, I want the results to matter. If the outcome has already been decided, why waste my time on a nonproductive activity?

For me, role-playing is its own reward. I don't need to have my portrayal of the character "matter" to enjoy myself. YMMV.

Well if you don't want to roleplay or you don't want your roleplaying to have any impact on the game, then your approach will work.

I do not want my roleplaying to have any effect on my character's competence. Obviously, the choices I make for my character (do we continue on to the next dungeon level or go back to town?) are going to have an impact on the game--and that's as it should be. But my 15th-level bard with 18 ranks of Diplomacy shouldn't suck at negotiating a peace treaty with the barbarian chieftain just because I suck at negotiating peace treaties.

Although if this is the case you'd probably be better off playing Squad Leader or some other wargame. The DM's there to adjudicate with common sense areas where the rules don't give reasonable results, and the one-roll social interaction rule is rarely sophisticated enough to give reasonable results in even a moderately complex situation.

Shenanigans. The DM is well within his rights to call for more than one roll if the situation is "complex" enough to justify such a mechanic, or to apply circumstance modifiers to reflect the complexity. What he's not entitled to do is penalize the character because "You didn't even try to role-play that out, Jim!"

My other major complaint with the social rules is that they're generally not applied to PC's. If the NPC's can be persuaded by a roll, regardless of what the DM thinks they would do, the same should apply to the PCs. If you try this though, you'll hear all kinds of whining about "my PC wouldn't do that" and "you're interfering with my character." I don't see "player's fiat" as being any more or less legitimate then "DM's fiat" What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.

I agree. Players who refuse to act bluffed when their characters fail Sense Motive rolls (for example) are bad players. This is not the fault of the game system.

More to the point of thread, I think Mr. Gibbons' opinions show that some players at least are taking a "strategy"/wargame approach to D&D.

Either you didn't understand me, or you have a completely different definition of "strategy/wargame approach" than I do.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

How do you feel about giving players who are awful strategists something like Knowledge: Planning, and reducing all in-game PC scheming to a skill check?

I'd say "Knowledge: Planning" is an overly broad skill, and that "all in-game PC scheming" is obviously too vague of an effect.

But allowing a player who is an awful strategist to have a character with a skill like Profession (military scientist), and providing him with useful tactical information ("They seem to be trying to draw you in closer, probably so they can flank you. Falling back and using ranged weapons might be a better idea.") when he makes a successful skill check would be perfectly okay with me.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

For me, role-playing is its own reward. I don't need to have my portrayal of the character "matter" to enjoy myself. YMMV.

I've heard that before and I think it's a cop out. If you just want to roleplay you don't need any rules at all. You can do improvosational acting or soemthing like that. If you make a game out of roleplaying, the roleplaying has to affect something.

I do not want my roleplaying to have any effect on my character's competence. Obviously, the choices I make for my character (do we continue on to the next dungeon level or go back to town?) are going to have an impact on the game--and that's as it should be. But my 15th-level bard with 18 ranks of Diplomacy shouldn't suck at negotiating a peace treaty with the barbarian chieftain just because I suck at negotiating peace treaties.

This is starting to sound like a granularity issue - meaning the number and nature of decisions and rolls used to resolve a situation. The social interaction rules don't support complex decision making. If you're in physical combat you have dozens of options and many chances to make decisions. In social interaction you have very few options and often just one decision. If you ran combat this way each player would make a single decision and a single roll per combat, and would conquer or die based on the result. Boring. I prefer grainy interaction if the encounter is of any importance. One way to do this is to use the DM's judgement. If you have a DM who's any good at all and players who are willing to trust him this works very well. Alternately, you could use more sophisticated social rules, but D&D doesn't have them, and they're very difficult to design well.

Shenanigans. The DM is well within his rights to call for more than one roll if the situation is "complex" enough to justify such a mechanic, or to apply circumstance modifiers to reflect the complexity. What he's not entitled to do is penalize the character because "You didn't even try to role-play that out, Jim!"

As I said, I like to roleplay encounters of any importance. If a player refuses to support my fun by not doing so, he will be penalized by not being invited back to my table.

I like the idea of a mod to your roll based on the player's performance. It allows both the character's proficiency and the player's roleplaying to have an effect. YMDD obviously.

I agree. Players who refuse to act bluffed when their characters fail Sense Motive rolls (for example) are bad players. This is not the fault of the game system.

Nice to know we agree on something.

Either you didn't understand me, or you have a completely different definition of "strategy/wargame approach" than I do.

The latter. When people say "roleplaying" they mean one of several different things. We're not going to get a consensus on what "roleplaying" is anytime soon, because then somebody would have to admit that they're not a "real roleplayer" because they don't fit the accepted definition. As long as people understand that it means different thing to different people they can usually muddle through these conversations.

 

[Voadam]

I agree. Players who refuse to act bluffed when their characters fail Sense Motive rolls (for example) are bad players. This is not the fault of the game system.

Or they are following the rules as written when the social skill diplomacy comes into play.

DIPLOMACY (CHA)
Check: You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check

 

[Rev. Jesse]

(When relating to the focus of role-playing in D&D compared w/ other games)

But I'd say it comes down to the reward system.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Lost Soul.

The other, regular game I play usually uses the White-Wolf "d10" system. I probably see more role-playing there then in my D&D game in part because the WW system gives out exp based on character accomplishment as opposed to conflict and combat. Of course, defeating an opponent in combat is an accomplishment, but there are other ways to achieve your goals and this system benefits that sort of lateral thinking, which often involves role-playing.

There are ideas for role-playing exp awards for players in DMG, but they aren't the focus of the rules. If the experience point system could some how be adjusted to giving out points for achievement, rather than (or in addition to) smacking in heads, then I think this would encourage a lot more role-playing. The easiest way would be to assign each objective a CR, of sorts. I think such a system in D&D could dramatically improve the role-playing opportunities.

Peter Gibbons said:

I do not want my roleplaying to have any effect on my character's competence.[...] But my 15th-level bard with 18 ranks of Diplomacy shouldn't suck at negotiating a peace treaty with the barbarian chieftain just because I suck at negotiating peace treaties.

Peter, don't forget this is a game, and we are playing to have fun. It is often enjoyable for everyone else to watch you try and stumble through that kind of stuff. You might have a cheer too, if you try.

Storm Raven said:

The big difference now is that we have a game mechanic for differentiating people who are bad at social skills from people who are good at them. I fail to see why people think it makes sense to have slovenly, out of shape players use rule mechanics to pretend they can fight like ninjas, but it is somehow bad to allow shy or socially awkward players use rule mechanics to pretend they are great orators.

I can only say that, speaking in my professional capacity, social skills are a lot easier to train than physical ones, particularly in a role-playing environment where we try to remove most inhibitions. In my groups, we might accept a shy newbie, but I would expect her to come out of her shell quite readily after a few warm-up sessions. If someone in a group refuses to role-play, and refuses to grow in herskill set, then I don't see why the rest of the group should put up with her.

Cheers-

-Jesse

 

[Wild Gazebo]

It seems to me that the newer editions have become more logically ordered and inherently intergrated. Meaning, the same rule-set works across the board in terms of DMing and PCing, combat and non-combat, tasks and events, and statistics versus activities. I feel this has given players a firmer grasp of the system...and a more all encompassing, or omnipotent, viewpoint of the game. Of course this is irrelevant for playing DMs and longtime gamers; but, I feel this setup has further accommodated the perception that players are more apt to metagame/stratagise/powergame.

Now, I'm not sure if this is the case but I do feel the simplicity, (over)economy, and integration of the newer ruleset has given the players more power than in the past. It seems this set of rules is all about accountablitiy...a way to track what the DM and the PCs have done or are doing...and therefore more aptly predict what will come.

I feel people who are interested in strategy or roleplaying will find common ground because the ruleset gives such defined parameters needed for continuity and accessability. The authors had a very hard decision to make: a heavy ruleset to accomidate their beloved hobby or a heavy guideline to define their hobby. And since so many people play this game so completely different, I feel thay made the correct decision.

People who love to roleplay will find a way--regardless of the system. People who love to play stategy games will settle on a good ruleset. I find the suggestion the one feeds the other more aptly...a bit wanting.